Talk:Hollywood Walk of Fame/Archive 2

Amount of images
While I don't really agree with the amount in the article itself, I don't think that's as big a deal as the gallery. The first part of the gallery is examples of the five different types of stars - the same thing in the Description section. Totally unnecessary, IMO. The second part, on the other hand, need some prose to be kept. Even then, we really don't need all six pictures to show that people are sad when celebs die. If a few sentences were added, and then maybe the MJ photos (the most famous ones) were kept, I think it'd look a lot better. Thoughts?  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  00:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not sure why the caption to the Joanne Woodward photo was removed. Images should always have captions, and Fetch even listed this as one of the things keeping this article from GA status.  Nolelover ' It's almost football season!  00:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Per WP:Manual of Style (captions), not all images need captions. That said, there are too many in this article without them.  Nolelover ' It's almost football season!  18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore DoctorJoe, in this edit you simply reverted to a previous version of the page without giving a reason for making all the changes in the edit. In the future, please don't do an all-out revert, and only edit the things you list in the edit summary - along with removing the non-free images ( which I do agree with ) and all of the captions (which I don't), you undid some spacing and image-removal that I don't know you meant to do.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also re-added the images that Pilettes inserted, as they are much clearer and better-looking.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nolelover about the galleries. They don't add anything. The article has too many images already.  Will Beback    talk    20:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So here are my reasons again: all the stars look the same, and we already have examples of what the five categories look like, so the first gallery is totally redundant. One or two of the pictures in the second gallery could be used, if some more prose were written explaining more about it. I think a deaths section could easily go in the "The Walk Today" section, and be illustrated with maybe one of those pics. Until then, I'm removing both galleries.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Official website change

 * The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce website http://hollywoodchamber.net now links to http://walkoffame.com for the Hollywood Walk Of Fame. This broke some links, which are fixed. At the moment, links to their star database are broken.  This only affects the Monty Woolley star citation link (citation #68) for now. I've left it as is, pending their fixup.
 * In citations, we should still credit "Hollywood Chamber of Commerce" as publisher, though the work is now "walkoffame.com". --Lexein (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Fixed link at List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Guoguo12  --Talk--  21:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats
I reverted the removal of the Wikilink to the List of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, as it forms the basis of the routine calculations for the statistics, per WP:CALC. I can't find the discussion, but I seem to recall consensus about this. There may be a smoother way to include the link. Perhaps,
 * "Of all the stars on the Walk, 47% are ..."

--Lexein (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with the above. I think you should use cite news for referencing news articles. That way, the article references section is kept consistent and free of grammatical errors (like "Washington Post" instead of "Washington Post"). Guoguo12  --Talk--  13:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Cite news does simplify the style question, esp. italics in the case of news sources which are available in print, so I'll go with that. I seem to recall it breaking something, but I can't recall what at the moment.--Lexein (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Such templates break if you use a vertical bar ("|"), but not if you use !. Guoguo12  --Talk--  18:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com trap
"examiner.com" trips up editors all the time, it even got me a while back. It's so non-RS that its URL is blacklisted in citations. See WP:RSN archives. As for the photo of Mayor Tom Bradley's star, I cited hwof.com, since its photo is correct, and removed the dubious tag from the Flickr photo: it's a better picture, and acts only to support the first cite. --Lexein (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. You're definitely right. Apparently the site is "not even close to reliable" (RSN archives). You see, I receive The Washington Examiner, which apparently is unrelated and is written by real journalists. Guoguo12  --Talk--  02:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Second GA nomination collaboration
User:Nolelover and I have decided to collaborate in cleaning this article up for a second GA nomination. Help and comments from other editors are definitely welcome. Guoguo12 --Talk--  14:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

To-do
Add anything not on the list already, strike out anything completed. ...
 * Make reference and article date formats consistent (MDY format, as in "July 4, 1776")
 * Use cite templates for all references
 * Fix deadlinks
 * Add references to unsourced statements (a lot, some are marked w/ "[citation needed]", some are not)
 * Add image captions


 * Remember that we also have all the notes from the first GAN above.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  01:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. This checklist actually wasn't that great of an idea. My plan is to run through the entire article section by section, fixing all references as I go. I'm already through the lead and the first half of "Description". Guoguo12  --Talk--  02:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I've finished the whole "Description" section. Only one quintillion sections to go. Guoguo12  --Talk--  03:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious
When adding a dubious tag, it's usual to start a discussion at the same time. I read through the source and found the text supporting the claim but rewrote it for clarity. There are two origin-of-star-concept-inspiration stories (not theories), so we cite both. --Lexein (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the tip. Guoguo12  --Talk--  03:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, sorry about those random reflist templates I keep forgetting to remove. I use them for testing in preview mode. Guoguo12  --Talk--  03:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm famous for them. --Lexein (talk) 01:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Complete list of Honorees" section
I'm not sure (and I might be totally wrong), but I believe that sections that only consist of a single link are rather frowned upon. Might it be better to move that link to either the top (This article is about...for...see...) or the bottom (See also section). Just a thought, but I don't really think that a one-link section looks good.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  00:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've moved it to the first section on describing the stars. Guoguo12  --Talk--  02:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Images (again)
There are simply too many images in the article. in my mind:

I have removed because it is unnecessary to its section, not to mention that it is practically a bad duplicate of the image in the Bending the rules section.

I have removed, and  because, well, all the stars look the same and there is really no reason to keep an excess of images. They don't really add to the article, and I see no reason to keep them.

I removed becaue again, it adds nothing to its section, and there are already two other unveiling images in the Nom process section. TBH, I think even that is too much, but I'll wait for some other comments.

Thoughts?  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  00:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. No need for unnecessary clutter. Or else we could have a gallery of all 2,500 or so stars. Guoguo12  --Talk--  00:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I removed the beginnings of that a while back.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  00:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the deletion of Woolley's star, because it's unique: it's one of a few erroneous stars which are carefully cited (added caption so it's clearer for editors, and vision impaired readers). I recommend that resizing be done, rather than deletion, in most cases.  "Too many pictures" is subjective, ignores context, and doesn't cite policy or guideline.  I challenge the deletion of any uniques, and prefer discussion of them first.  I agree that Magic Johnson's star is on the bubble, but the fact that he's only marginally "in" one of the five categories adds some uniqueness.  My overall sense is this:
 * One picture per section isn't overwhelming, especially if the picture is resized rather than deleted. Most images were carefully selected.
 * Uniques should have captions explaining their presence.
 * Editors new to this article should consider this article on its own merits, not on other articles which may have seemed to be cluttered with irrelevant images.
 * Priorities should be considered: "too many pictures" wasn't even listed in the GA discussions above. To me, that means it's not a jump out issue. Improvement should focus on the other issues first, IMHO.
 * When did the deletion of galleries become so important? Link to consensus, please.
 * --Lexein (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first off, I intentionally went deletion heavy so I wasn't really anticipating that all of those images stayed out. Wooley's star does look unique, so I do support its remaining. Magic's star: what does the image add to the article? The star itself is not unique, so I'm not sure why that would stay. Yes, the fact that he's in is unique, I guess, but the star, and therefore the image, is not so. That's my thoughts. As to the galleries, I addressed that above.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. I agree about Magic. --Lexein (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lexein, to quote WP:IG:
 * "'The use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.'"
 * Personally, I fail to see how the image gallery (link to old revision) described things that could not have been done so in the "Description" section. The gallery also served to prove that "the stars of deceased celebrities often serve as repositories for expressions of respect." But could this not be included in the text? To answer your question below, one image of a memorialized star is enough. Guoguo12  --Talk--  17:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about WP:G, and do see the point. If the Homage section prose grows much more (there seems to be a lot of RS material), I may advocate for one more pic there (of perhaps a female celebrity's star nearly covered in flowers - Monroe? Taylor?).  The extant Jackson pic illustrates the anniversary, and has few flowers. --Lexein (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

J. Woodward section
I was in the process of thinking what we could do with that section (it seems a little out of place), when Guoguo made this edit. Hey, works for me.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  20:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad I made the right choice. (I wasn't sure whether or not to discuss it first. It didn't seem all that controversial.) Guoguo12  --Talk--  00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Memorialized stars
I'm of the opinion that at least one image of a "memorialized" star (almost covered with flowers and cards) such as Michael Jackson's, should be present. That one had an explanatory caption, but no body text. Anybody object to adding such an image (not necessarily Jackson's) back in an appropriate section, with body text supporting it? --Lexein (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea, and I (sort of) floated that idea earlier. However, I am strongly against any section that just consists of images and their captions. (I'm not talking about a a gallery, but rather when we are expecting to explain the images purely through their captions, and with no prose.)  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  14:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The star photo for 2010 anniversary of Jackson's death was there to visually support the claim about anniversaries. That has been replaced with the 2009 photo. To me, it seems like either the later one, or both, belong.  --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well I doubt such a photo is necessary as visual support when a photo for the initial memorializing is present, especially if the latter is a better, clearer image. Guoguo12   (Talk)  23:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Joanne Woodward first to pose for a picture
The Bruce Torrence Hollywood Photograph Collection www.hollywoodphotographs.com owns the copyright to the original picture of Joanne Woodward posing on her star. She was one of the first eight stars and the first person to pose on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Bruce's father took that shot.Walk7018 (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

number of stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame
Article mentions MORE THAN 2,500 - as of June 3 there's only 2,442 stars. There are 15-25 ceremonies per year. It would take 2-3 years to make that statement accurate.Walk7018 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting one. The number "2,500" was first added to the article in 2004, referring to the original construction of the walk, and no source was provided back then, or, apparently, ever. I see at http://walkoffame.com/pages/history that room was allocated for 2,518 stars (but not that there were (or are) that many). That page, or its historical counterpart at hollywoodchamber.net, might have been the unintentional source of the misunderstanding. I found the "2,442" count you mention at http://walkoffame.com/pages/upcoming-ceremonies.
 * In future, suggestions would be easier to implement if you could provide a published source!
 * Since you quoted 2,442 exactly, am I correct in guessing that you are related to the Chamber of Commerce? If so, welcome! And thanks for making suggestions here about the article. --Lexein (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Believe originally space was allocated for some 2500 stars. These days, many people ask what they would do once they fill up all the 2500 spaces. The number 2500 is no longer valid. A third raw has already been established. There's plenty of room to expand.
 * Yes.Walk7018 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walk7018 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

use of Chamber of Commerce vs Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Under Stagnation and revitalization, in first paragraph, add Hollywood to "as the Los Angeles City Council in 1962 passed an ordinance naming the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce"... The name is not Chamber of Commerce, it's Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. If it's too long, the use of "Hollywood Chamber" vs "Chamber of Commerce" is a more accurate reference.Walk7018 (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * --Lexein (talk) 06:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

first caricature image
"In February 1956, a prototype was unveiled that featured a caricature of an example honoree (John Wayne, by some accounts)[18] and brown-blue sidewalks.[16]" The original caricature prototype is currently displayed at The Hollywood Museum.(1660 North Highland Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90028-6121, (323) 464-7776). It's for Cary Grant. Until there's reliable reference which says there were more than one prototype made - including one for John Wayne, reference needs revision. Walk7018 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's one of those topics where sources disagree. The listed source, Thomson "The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood" says "Wayne according to some." It's the only source we have at the moment. Was there ever a news article, magazine article, or some other book which mentions Grant? Is it listed in the Hollywood Museum printed catalog? It's not on their website. --Lexein (talk) 06:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The Hollywood Museum says on website "See 10,000 Real Show Biz Treasures! The most extensive collection of Hollywood memorabilia in the world." Not sure about printed catalog. I have a picture of the original artwork with Cary Grant signature. Not comfortable in releasing it. I found it online at the following site: http://goldenagedames.wordpress.com/ and http://goldenagedames.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/260.jpg
 * If you look at the picture closely, you'll see that it's a square. The light reflection is due to the encasing window panes behind which these items are displayed.
 * Walk7018 (talk) 07:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I found the pic page http://goldenagedames.wordpress.com/2011/05/ but there's no context which establishes it as the prototype caricature. Just FYI, there's no hurry. In fact, WP:There is no deadline. --Lexein (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

discussion about accurate opinion without seeing the final design
Under "Restoration" Section: third par. "The program has received some criticism in the media. "Why is a Scandinavian vodka being enshrined on the Hollywood Walk of Fame?", asked Alana Semuels of the Los Angeles Times, who cited the program as "proof that no attraction or event in the U.S. is impervious to the phenomenon of corporate sponsorship".[47]

The body of the reference article says that the author has not seen the plaque. The article reads: "It's unclear just how different the Absolut plaque, near the intersection of Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue, will be from nearby stars for Antonio Banderas, Matthew Broderick and Jackie Chan." Chamber officials wouldn't provide a sneak preview, but Gubler described the plaque as a 3-foot square set in terrazzo and brass featuring an Absolut bottle, text citing Absolut as a "Friend of the Walk of Fame," and icons such as a film projector and microphone that appear on other stars. Last month, Gubler said, the chamber rejected a design that looked too much like the stars for celebrities. He said the plaque cannot be confused with a star because it is on private property and is "set back a distance from the Walk of Fame."

Need to find a reference of media criticism after unveiling of the "Friends" plaque. Walk7018 (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Rewrote the paragraph. I'm not sure it's relevant that she didn't see the plaque before unveiling, because she was critiquing the notion of corporate sponsorship with perks-for-pay, as was her interviewee. --Lexein (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)